An Overview of The War on Terrorism
Jim Marrs
An Overview of The War on Terrorism
Thu Apr 22, 2004 12:17
67.1.146.27

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=7626
An Overview of The War on Terrorism
By Jim Marrs

?We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant
facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a
nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in
an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.? - President
John F. Kennedy

Americans are now beginning to pay the price for sleeping through
history classes, ignoring important information in the alternative media
and neglecting to participate in their own political process. They find
themselves in a new war--the War on Terrorism. This is a war they never
asked for and never envisioned, anaesthetised as we all are by the
flickering tube of distraction. It is a war predicated on the premise
that a sneak attack was made on the United States on September 11, 2001.

Unlike previous wars, there is no Berlin or Tokyo to capture and hence
no victory to be won, except for those who profit from war. The real
victims of this war will be the average American citizen, right along
with the starving Afghan.

This new war might well be compared to the failed War on Drugs and the
nearly forgotten War on Poverty. No clear victory has yet been achieved
over the misuse of drugs or the ravages of poverty within our own
nation. Our prisons are overflowing with drug offenders, with no
appreciable lessening of either demand or supply of illegal drugs, and
our basic civil rights have been badly mauled. Just like those failed
campaigns, the War on Terrorism for the foreseeable future will set us
all on a costly course of restrictions on individual freedom, ever more
centralised authority and omnipresent fear.

And where are the voices of those who would argue the merits of this new
war? The airwaves and newspapers only ratchet the fear factor upwards
each day, with little or no effort to hear the many thoughtful Americans
who are asking themselves, "Do I really need to give up my freedoms in
order to save them?"

So with flags flying on the antennae of our gas-guzzling vehicles and
love of country pulsing in our hearts, we march off to yet another war
for oil.

WARS FOR OIL
Yes, oil. Petroleum has been behind all recent wars, beginning in the
early 1940s when a mostly rural and isolationist America was suddenly
thrown into World War II as a reaction to the Japanese attack on Pearl
Harbor. Americans mourned the loss of some 3,000 soldiers and civilians
in Hawaii and, in righteous indignation, allowed their country to be
turned into a giant military camp.

The Federal government, which had consolidated so much power unto itself
under the Depression-busting policies of President Franklin Roosevelt,
grew even stronger and more centralised under the aegis of "national
security". It all seemed quite natural and necessary at the time.

But serious students of history now know that even that "good war" was
the result of machinations by a handful of wealthy and powerful men. By
closing off Japan's oil supplies in the summer of 1941, Roosevelt, the
quintessential Wall Street insider, ensured an eventual attack on the
United States. It has now been well established that Roosevelt and a few
close advisers knew full well that Pearl Harbor would be attacked on
December 7, 1941, but chose to allow it to happen to further their
agenda for launching America into war. (The details of this may be found
in my book, Rule by Secrecy.)

The Vietnam War was prosecuted by men who were close to Roosevelt and
the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and who had long voiced a desire
to gain control over Indochina's oil, magnesium and rubber assets. Again
a provocation was created. In August 1964, President Lyndon Johnson
whipped Congress into a frenzy by claiming that North Vietnamese
gunboats had attacked the US Sixth Fleet in the Gulf of Tonkin off the
coast of Vietnam. "Our boys are floating in the water," he cried.

Congress responded by passing the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which
bypassed the Constitution and gave Johnson the power to wage war to stop
attacks on Americans. It was the beginning of the real-shooting Vietnam
War.

And it was all a lie. No evidence has ever been brought forward that
such an attack took place. In fact, editors for US News & World Report
(July 23, 1984) called it "The 'Phantom Battle' that Led to War".

While America was waging war against North Vietnam, which we were told
was merely a puppet of communist Russia and China, Johnson was
encouraged by his CFR advisers to grant the Soviet Union loans at higher
levels than offered during World War II when they were our ally.
US-backed loans provided Russia with the means to build facilities which
turned out war materials that were then sent to North Vietnam for use
against American troops. This was a good example of the duplicity of our
modern wars.

The Gulf War was all about oil, from the wells in Kuwait slant-drilling
into Iraq's southern reserves to the destruction of the oilfields at its
finish. Here we found a new Hitler in Saddam Hussein, an enemy armed and
financed by the CIA--an agency whose top officials have long been
connected to oilmen, CFR members and other globalists (see Rule by
Secrecy).

Saddam Hussein, strapped for cash due to his eight-year war against Iran
on behalf of the US, decided to regain Kuwait as a means of increasing
his income. Kuwait had been carved out of southern Iraq by British
troops. When asked her thoughts on this move, US Ambassador April
Glaspie replied that the US Government had "no opinion" and that the
matter of Kuwait was not associated with America. But when he moved his
troops into Kuwait, President George H. W. Bush mobilised a United
Nations force against him, backed by a US$4 billion secret fund provided
by his business associates in Saudi Arabia.

Yet, as those patriotic soldiers closed in on Saddam, the whole war
stopped and George H. W. Bush's old business partner is still in power.
It appears to have been yet another provocation. And as in Vietnam, even
as we prepared to fight against Saddam, the American taxpayers backed
$500 million in loans that Bush used to purchase arms for use against
our forces.

CASPIAN SEA OIL COVETED
Today the real issue is the rich oil reserves of the Caspian Sea
region--the prize sought by Hitler, whose drive to that area was stopped
only by the tenacious Russian defence of the Volga River city of
Stalingrad.

In the late 1970s, with the Soviet discovery of vast untapped oil in
Chechnya, the region was ripe for exploitation but control over
Afghanistan was needed to ensure the safety of a pipeline to bring the
oil to world markets. But after almost 10 years of brutal, no-quarter
fighting against Afghans and Arab mercenaries including Osama bin Laden,
and backed by the US, the Soviets were forced to withdraw. The economic
stress of this Russo-Afghan War was enough to topple communism in the
early 1990s.

Now the international bankers and oilmen have a foothold in
cash-strapped Russia, and the estimated $40 billion in Caspian Sea oil
is again attracting serious attention. In 1997, six international
companies and the Government of Turkmenistan formed Central Asian Gas
Pipeline Ltd (CentGas) to build a 790-mile-long pipeline to Pakistan and
perhaps on to the New Delhi area of India. Leading this consortium was
Unocal Corporation, whose president, John F. Imle, Jr, said the project
would be "the foundation for a new commerce corridor for the
region--often referred to as the Silk Road for the 21st century".

But problems developed with the fundamentalist Muslim government in
Afghanistan, not the least of which was the Taliban government's
treatment of women which prompted feminist demonstrations against firms
seeking to do business there. Additionally, the Taliban regime was
creating chaotic conditions by pitting the various Islamic sects against
each other in order to maintain control. In mid-1999, Unocal withdrew
from the pipeline consortium, citing the hazardous political situation,
and the project languished.

Notice that in President George W. Bush's declaration of War on
Terrorism, he never mentioned terrorists in Northern Ireland or
Palestinian suicide bombers. Attention was focused only on Afghanistan,
the one nation necessary to complete the lucrative pipeline.

It should also be noted that Vice President Dick Cheney headed
Halliburton, a giant oil industry service company with vested interests
in the region, and he is generally thought to be more powerful than the
President.

AFGHAN ACTION PLANNED LONG AGO
Today it can be demonstrated that military action against Afghanistan
was in the works long before the September 11 attacks.

As reported by the BBC's George Arney, former Pakistan Foreign Secretary
Niaz Naik was alerted by American officials in mid-July that military
action against Afghanistan would be launched by mid-October.

At a UN-sponsored meeting concerning Afghanistan in Berlin, Naik was
informed that unless bin Laden were handed over, America would take
military action either to kill or capture both him and Taliban leader
Mullah Omar as the initial step in installing a new government there.

In a 1998 interview published in the French publication Le Nouvel
Observateur (the significant portions of which never made it to the
United States), former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski
admitted that American activities in Afghanistan actually began six
months prior to the Soviet action of December 1979.

Brzezinski said the Jimmy Carter administration began secretly funding
opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul in July 1979, with the full
knowledge that such action might provoke a Soviet invasion. Soviet
leaders at the time argued that the invasion was necessary to thwart
American aggression in Afghanistan. The former National Security
Adviser, who helped found the globalist Trilateral Commission, expressed
no regret at this provocation, stating: "That secret operation was an
excellent idea. It brought about the demoralization and finally the
breakup of the Soviet empire." It also produced the Taliban regime which
we are fighting today, as well as Osama bin Laden.

By 1984, with Vice President George Bush overseeing the Afghan
situation, bin Laden was in charge of the Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK),
which funnelled money, arms and manpower from the outside world into the
war against the Soviets. He soon helped form a polyglot formation of
Muslim troops from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian
refugee camps, whom the CIA found easier to deal with than the Muslim
fundamentalists in Afghanistan.

There should be considerable soul-searching about America's role in
arming and training an international group of Muslim extremists in
Afghanistan, long after their comrades destroyed the Marine barracks in
Beirut and hijacked numerous airliners. Little noticed in the aftermath
of the September 11 attacks were reports that China had signed a pact
with the Afghans and was quietly inducted into the controversial World
Trade Organization--action which under normal circumstances would have
drawn widespread protest. Although such a pact is unconfirmed at this
time, Pakistani General Pervez Musharraf, chairman of their joint chiefs
and chief of the Pakistani Army Staff, this year visited China at their
request and discussed matters of mutual interest.

Although it is claimed that Pakistan is aiding the US in the current War
on Terrorism, the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism,
Michael Sheehan, told a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee that
Pakistan supports and trains terrorist groups in Afghanistan.

This raises the spectre of Chinese intervention, should US forces become
bogged down in mountainous Afghanistan. This prospect is particularly
unsettling, as back in 1555 the French prophet Nostradamus, who has been
proven correct in so many of his prophecies, published his prediction
that America and Russia would go to war against a coalition made up of
Arab nations and China (see C. III v. 60; also C. VI v. 21). Until just
recently, such a notion seemed absurd.

WOULD AMERICANS ATTACK AMERICANS?
The WTC/Pentagon attacks provided a convenient excuse to launch the
pre-laid plans for military action against Afghanistan. But were they
simply allowed to happen, or were they contrived? The question becomes:
"Would any American allow an attack on fellow Americans, just to further
his own business or political agenda?" The answer unfortunately appears
to be "Yes".

Incredibly, 40-year-old government documents, thought to have been
destroyed long ago but recently made public, show the US military in the
early 1960s proposed making terrorist attacks in the United States and
blaming them on Fidel Castro. They are discussed in a recent book on the
National Security Agency (NSA), entitled Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the
Ultra-Secret National Security Agency, by James Bamford.

These documents were produced beginning in late 1961, following the
ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba that spring. President John F.
Kennedy, angered by the inept actions of the CIA, had shifted
responsibility for Cuba from that agency to the Department of Defense.
Here, military strategists considered plans to create terrorist actions
which would alarm the American population and stampede them into
supporting a military attack on Cuba. Under consideration in Operation
Northwoods were plans:


a.. to create "a series of well-coordinated incidents" in or around
the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to include inciting riots and
blowing up ammunition stores, aircraft and ships;


a.. to "develop a Communist Cuba terror campaign in the Miami area, in
other Florida cities and even in Washington";


a.. to "sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or
simulated)...foster attempts on the lives of Cuban refugees in the
United States";


a.. to explode bombs in carefully chosen locations and coordinate with
the release of "prepared documents" pointing to Cuban complicity;


a.. to use fake Russian aircraft to harass civilian airliners;


a.. to make "hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft",
even to simulating the shooting down of a civilian airliner.

Kennedy rejected Operation Northwoods and senior military officers
ordered the documents destroyed. But someone slipped up and the papers
were discovered by the Assassination Records Review Board and recently
released by the National Archives.

On a more recent event, The New York Times (October 28, 1993) reported
that an informant named Emad Salem was involved early in 1993 with
Middle Eastern terrorists connected to Osama bin Laden, to develop a
bomb for use against New York's World Trade Center. Salem, a former
Egyptian Army officer, wanted to substitute a harmless powder for the
explosive, but his plan to thwart the attack was blocked by an FBI
official who apparently did not want to expose the inside informant. The
attack was allowed to proceed. The February 26, 1993 explosion in the
WTC resulted in six deaths, more than 1,000 casualties, and damage in
excess of half a billion dollars.

We now see that creating crises to further political goals was a
methodology well understood and utilised in the 20th century. Is this
the game today? Let's examine the September 11 attacks.

QUESTIONS OVER THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS
Superficially, it all seemed straightforward enough. According to the
official story, about 19 suicidal Middle Eastern terrorists, their
hearts full of hatred for American freedom and democracy, hijacked four
airliners, crashing two into the twin towers of New York City's World
Trade Center and a third into the Pentagon. The fourth reportedly
crashed in western Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to fight the
terrorists.

But many disturbing questions have arisen. Among them:


a.. Why was the US military preparing war plans against Afghanistan
mo



Main Page -  04/23/04

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]

APFN MESSAGEBOARD ARCHIVES

messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)